1 maj 2010

Net censorship debate with EU Commissioner Malmström

Swedish EU Commissioner Cecilia Malmström wants to introduce ”filtering” of the Internet, to block sites that are accused of spreading child pornography. She believes this would be an effective way to reduce sexual child abuse in the world.
I and The Pirate Party disagree with her, and think that censorship of the Internet is a bad idea. If there are sites on the net that are illegally distributing pictures of sexual child abuse, we think that the sites should be shut down and the perpetrators put in jail, after a proper trial. But we do not accept censorship that is carried out in secrecy and without due process.

A couple of weeks ago, on April 7, I got the chance to have a debate about this proposal for Internet censorship with Cecilia Malmström on Swedish radio. The debate was in Swedish, but I have translated it here from the transcript in Swedish that some net activists did.

The radio program started with an interview with a policeman from the Swedish Police’s Child Pornography Group, who first gave some background about the system that is in place in Sweden since 2005. I have not translated that part, so I’ll summarize the background.

Sweden has a ”voluntary”system for blocking, where the major internet service providers block certain sites according to a list supplied by the police and updated regularly. If your computer tries to go to a web site that is on the list, it will be redirected to a stop page.

The policeman from the Child Pornography Group said that the stop page has about 50,000 hits per day. (This number has since been put in question.)

He confirmed that it is technically relatively easy to circumvent the blocking, but he did not think that it is very common that people who want to access these pages know how to do it.

He mentioned Ukraine as a big distributor of child pornography, but also said that many of the servers are located in the US.

After this introduction, it was time for the debate between Ms. Malmström and me. In the translated version here, I have added links to references for some of the things that were said in the debate.

[14:32] Reporter: With us from a studio in the EU Commission in Brussels is Cecilia Malmström, Sweden’s EU Commissioner. Welcome to the program.

[14:39] Malmström: Thank you.

[14:42] Reporter: Tell us about this law proposal that you have made about blocking child porn sites.

[14:49] Malmström: It is part of a bigger package to combat sexual abuse of children, so there are seveal propsals about punishments and harmonization, support for victims, treatment etc. But this particular part is about the problem that there are so many child pornography sites around. We are proposing that the member states should block them.

This can be done in various different ways. One way is to do it like in Sweden. This is a good solution that is also used in Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Great Britain. Another way is to legislate. This has been done in Italy and Finland, and is on its way in Belgium and France as well.

At the same time, the member states should of course also do what the policeman talked about, to try to close them down at the source, so to speak. But they often have their web hotels in countries that are difficult to cooperate with, where we don’t have this kind of agreements. So we propose that we should do both, and that it is up to the member states do decide exactly how it should be done.

[15:47] Reporter: What do you think can be achieved with a law like this?

[15:54] Malmström: First, it sends an important signal that these are horrible pictures that are being produced. Every time somebody looks at them the children are violated. This is an assault on the most vulnerable individuals in our society. Also, it is a way to always ”keep pushing” to make it more and more difficult to access, to reduce demand. Just like the policeman says here, it is a way to fight it. It doesn’t work one hundred percent, of course, but as the Swedish experience shows, it can be fairly effective.

[16:15:] Reporter: But you are saying that the Swedish voluntary system is good, but you would like to go further?

[16:31] Malmström: No, I’m not saying that. It is good that the member states close down. We want the member states to block these sites. This can be done in different ways. It can be done like in Sweden and many other countries, or it can be done via legislation. There are different techniques, and the Commission has no opinion on this. The sites should be blocked and closed down.

[16:52] Reporter: But 15% of Sweden is not covered by the voluntary agreement.

[16:58] Malmström: Yes, but that means that 85% is, so we get quite a few in this way.

[17:02] Reporter: Let’s welcome Christian Engström, Member of the European Parliament for The Pirate Party, who is with us from another studio in Brussels.

[17:10] Reporter: You say that this proposal is censorship. How do you mean?

[17:14] Engström: Yes, it is censorship. It’s about blocking certain sites, so it’s censorship. And that’s what’s so worrying about this proposal. Of course nobody likes pictures of child abuse, that’s completely uncontroversial. Everybody is against it, and it’s illegal in all countries. To the extent that this kind of pictures are openly circulated on the net, it is very, very uncommon, simply because it is illegal in all countries, and most people find it revolting.

[17:40] Reporter: Before we go on, how do you know that it is very, very uncommon?

[17:47] Engström: Because I know a lot of pirates who are very good at finding things on the Internet. They all say the same thing: There isn’t a lot of child pornography openly available. I’m sure it happens that child pornography is exchanged, but this is done in closed circles. If you’re interested in child pornography it’s hardly something you advertise on your own blog. It’s highly criminal in all countries, and there is a very low tolerance for it among basically all people.

[18:20] Reporter: But we heard the policeman from the Child Pornography Group say that there are 50,000 redirections per day. That seems to indicate a certain level of interest.

[18:30] Engström: No, that indicates that the so called ”child pornography list” contains other things than child pornography. This is clear from what the policeman said later. He says that most of the servers are in the US. If it had been pictures of sexual abuse of children, that would have been as illegal in the US as it is in any European country. If that was the case, the police would of course have taken them down. But it isn’t that kind of sites.

[18:58] Reporter: So you mean that in practice this kind of blocking does not primarily hit child porn sites?

[19:10] Engström: Exactly, child pornography is illegal everywhere, and virtually everybody finds it horrible. If it is openly available it will be reported to the police. The blocking list that the police has has been leaked, and when people have gone through the list, it turns out to be regular porn sites.

[19:31] Reporter: Cecilia Malmström, what do you say? You are attacking regular porn sites that are not illegal, according to Christian Engström.

[19:40] Malmström: With all due respect for The Pirate Party and your members and followers, I’m sure that you are not looking for child pornography sites. There are a lot of child pornography sites out there on the net. This is a big problem, according to the police in all EU member states, so it is not true that it is a marginal problem. And even if it were only a few, it is a horrible assault on sometimes very young children.

To call it censorship to try to close that down is to misunderstand what censorship is. Censorship is about opinions, freedom of speech. There is no freedom of speech to distribute child pornography, there is no human right to watch it. On the contrary, it’s illegal to have such films and to have such books. They should be shut down, sites like that on the net.

[20:21] Reporter: Christian Engström?

[20:30] Engström: Yes, we are quite agree, in that case they should be shut down. If there are sites that are openly distributing pictures of child abuse, then the sites should be shut down. But what Cecilia Malmström is proposing is to just put a blanket over the problem to hide it.

[20:47] Reporter: And what do you mean is the problem with a blanket?

[20:50] Engström: If there are this kind of pictures out in the open, then the police should of course close down the site, and find the people responsible for it and put them in prison. I find it very strange when Cecilia Malmström is saying that it is difficult to cooperate with the US, I can’t understand that. If this is true it is regrettable, but this is very sharp criticism she is directing at the United States, one of our major trade partners.

[21:20] Malmström: I didn’t say that! You…

[21:25] Reporter: But Cecilia Malmström. This sounds very simple according to Christian Engström.

[21:29] Malmström: Yes, but it isn’t. I wouldn’t put forward this proposal if it wasn’t a serious problem.

What we do in Sweden is that internet service providers block access, we have done it since 2005. It has been going on for five years, this thing that Christian Engström calls censorship. Denmark, Norway, New Zealand, Great Britain, and The Netherlands also do it. These are hardly countries that are known for trying to curb freedom of speech.

And it is a big problem. The policeman mentioned 50,000 attempts. It’s possible that the numbers are a bit exaggerated, but I’ve heard similar numbers from other countries.

And of course we should shut them down at the source. We of course cooperate with the US, but it is a giant problem in the US that they can’t get them because they change web hotels several times a day. They’re in Ukraine, and the Ukrainian authorities have recently admitted the problem. We cooperate with them too, but it’s not always easy. Many other web hotels are in rather peripheral countries that we have very little cooperation with, and then I’m not talking about the US or Ukraine.

It’s hard to shut them down, but of course we should do both these things in parallel, there is no conflict. What we are proposing from the Commission is exactly what Sweden has been doing for five years. No more than that, or if you want to solve it in some other way.

[22:42] Engström: But what the policeman said, and what has also become clear when this kind of lists have been leaked and people have analyzed them, is that most of the sites are in the US. If we focus on them, perhaps things aren’t quite as simple as Cecilia Malmström claims. Because if they had been illegal, they would have been illegal in the US as well.

[23:01] Reporter: I would like to ask Cecilia Malmström: You have faced the same criticism from the German government, which says it is far more effective to focus on shutting the pages down. How do you respond to this criticism?

[23:18] Malmström: No, I think we should do both. We should shut down when we can, but this is a problem. There are lots of studies showing this, and I’ll be happy to send these to Christian Engström. They show that the sites reappear several times a day on new hosting companies that are not accessible to the police. So this is a very complex problem.

Yes, there has been som criticism in Germany, although we have received a lot of support from Germany as well. And among virtually all the other member states there is large support. All organizations that work with children, such as ECPAT and Save the Children, have also expressed firm support. But it is true that there is criticism in Germany against this.

[23:48] Reporter: Christian Engström, Cecilia Malmström said earlier that this law proposal is an important signal to show that this is wrong. The children are violated again every time these pictures are distributed. You say that this proposal is censorship, but what do you want to do instead? How should we tackle the basic problem?

[24:15] Engström: Everybody is against child pornography being distributed.

[24:16] Reporter: Yes, but you’re a politician. What should we do?

[24:17] Engström: What we should do is to close down the sites immediately. And we can. When it comes to so called ”phishing” sites, that is, sites that pretend to be banks to trick people out of their account numbers etc., they are closed down within four hours of being reported. So it is possible to do things against criminal sites.

But what Cecilia Malmström is proposing is something different. Since the US isn’t interested in sending the police at these sites, there is something not quite right in her reasoning.

The problem with block lists is that nobody has any control over what is added. For a long time, the Swedish block list contained the site koreabonsai.com, which is a completely legitimate site about bonsai trees in Korea. It is unclear how it came to be included in the list in the first place, but in any case it was. They blocked the political site kopimi.com, which is a pirate related site that expresses certain political opinions, and in 2008 the were planning to block The Pirate Bay in this manner. Censorship carried out in secret doesn’t work.

[25:22] Reporter: We’ll end here. Thank you Christian Engström, Pirate Party Member of the European Parliament, and Sweden’s EU Commissioner Cecilia Malmström.

The debate has continued in the weeks that have passed since this radio program.

Share this:

Gilla

Relaterat

31 kommentarer

It is amazing that she has a completly private definition of the word censorship:
”Censorship is about opinions, freedom of speech”

She really do not think it is censorship to block sites if they don not express an opinion!? This opens for the same kind of blocking for a number of reasons such as filesharing, gambling, drugs etc etc without this being censorship according to her!

It is obvious that she is acting on information from ECPAT. I have been talking to representatives from ECPAT, and they say exactly the same thing. I don’t think Censilia is evil, but she should stop listening to ECPAT and start listening to others for a while. I have grown up with the Internet and used it before it was even mentioned in media, or by politicians, and I have never ever seen any child porn. The hate towards the people that produce child porn is so strong that it would be impossible not to keep their sites secret and closed.

If child porn sites can change hosting so fast, it’s one more reason why the filter won’t work. You should point that out in further debates. Also, Ms Malmström used two fundamentally flawed arguments. One: watching child porn does NOT increase sexual abuse of children. In fact, many sexuologists agree that child porn helps pedophiles discharge sexual energy in a harmless manner, without physically or psychologically harming real children. Two: child porn is not bad because it’s disgusting. 2 girls 1 cup is way beyond disgusting and it’s perfectly legal in both Europe and USA. Child porn is bad because real children are abused during it’s production. If the filter does nothing to prevent abuse of children during production of child porn, it’s completely useless.

Good job Christian. You got through both the message that child pornography sites should be shut down because they are illegal, both on the internet and in the real world, and you also ended by pointing out the real reason for these censor lists, to silence unwanted political messages.

Free Talk Live, a liberty minded radio talkshow had an interview once with a pedophile. What he said is that it doesn’t matter if all the porn is blocked, he would simply take a catalogue of clothing and view the children’s section.

Lets not forget that pedophiles are just like everyone else with normal sexdrives, just with a fetish that is not jive with the common moral understanding of what is acceptable. Criminilizing opinions doesn’t not work. They need help with their urges not jailtime.

[…] issue of child pornography to make website-blocking acceptable. He has posted the transcript of a radio interview he gave with Commissioner Cecilia Malmström – accusing her of walking Europe into the […]

[…] issue of child pornography to make website-blocking acceptable. He has posted the transcript of a radio interview he gave with Commissioner Cecilia Malmström – accusing her of walking Europe into the censorship […]

Very well done.
Oh yeah the ”Swedish model” for sticking your head in the sand and sure works. Personally I have never been affected by it as I circumvent it, and change other peoples settings when ever I can as well.

What was good about this transcript is that it is really clear that the blocking page gets 50 000 hits a day – and they do not say how many of these are robots, which site the user was trying to get to, etc. Basically what Miss Malmström is spouting is bull… it smells like it, it sounds like it, so therefore I conclude that it is.

She said that there are hundreds of sites containing child pornography – well, show us a list. IF all people who find it appalling would report sites like this to the proper authorities (police in the right country, the webhosts, etc) it would make it really hard for these people to set up shop anywhere else. The result would be that instead of having a sheltered existance, you can get pissed off about it and do something instead of actually thinking that everything is fine and that ”someone is doing something so I dont have to”.

I just did a google and a yahoo, and cannot find any particular pure childporn sites. However, I think I see where Malmström is taking this matter, but keeping it under wraps: most pages that show up on forums, on filesharing sites for edonkey indexing, and then of course the typical circular linking sites which advertise for sites that are other circular linking sites and so on… on these you might find the odd picture that hints towards childpron.

So what she really wants to do is ban access to all sites that links to anything that could be construed to be childporn? Probably starting off with the filesharing sites – even though all the links seem to be dead or removed. So to close a site down a person would just need to flood it with links and images and then you could have it added to the block list for the whole of europe.

And no one would know, because the list is secret. Have I missed anything here?

You did good in this debate and I really hope our friends in the rest of Europe read this and understand the problems, and not only those pointed out in the debate but also others pointed out among the comments above.

”She really do not think it is censorship to block sites if they don not express an opinion!? This opens for the same kind of blocking for a number of reasons such as filesharing, gambling, drugs etc etc without this being censorship according to her!”

Many people would actually welcome that. Of course, other sites that do not express an opinion include news agencies, government sites, most corporate sites, scientific communities, etc. In fact, even none of the message boards worth visiting express an opinion. They may publish individual posts containing opinions, but the site itself does not express one.

It’s people like this with their fluffy thinking and their almost criminally low grasp of how things work, that makes me understand terrorism. The system seems so rigged to produce insane and irrational decisions that only serve to cripple the society at large, that the frustration caused by it can not be channeled to producing any sort of positive change. I think I’m also beginning to understand that this is the main reason why Africa is such a mess and why their preferred method to bring about any social or governmental changes is AK-47. Practically no one sane ever gets elected or can handle the mental pain of having to work with these idiots.

”IF all people who find it appalling would report sites like this to the proper authorities (police in the right country, the webhosts, etc)”

It should be enough to report a suspected crime to your local police, who should pursue the matter by contacting the webhosts or the proper authorities. Blocking only results to inaction.

”Free Talk Live, a liberty minded radio talkshow had an interview once with a pedophile. What he said is that it doesn’t matter if all the porn is blocked, he would simply take a catalogue of clothing and view the children’s section.”

I’ve understood most even find those catalogues to be pretty much ”it”.

”Lets not forget that pedophiles are just like everyone else with normal sexdrives, just with a fetish that is not jive with the common moral understanding of what is acceptable. Criminilizing opinions doesn’t not work. They need help with their urges not jailtime.”

I think this brings us to question if the CP produces any harm other than to the children forced to participate. If the urges can be quenched using ”CP” that does not involve real children, then that should be allowed and even encouraged to reduce the number of sexual predators.
The gateway theory is probably completely wrong as most people find those images sickening.

The common moral understanding is not really a question at all, because children, like animals, can not be expected to fully understand when agreeing to the act.* Therefore there can be no consensuality, the act is sexual coercion or rape.

*) They also have other reduced rights and powers before the law, but there are also limits to the powers of the guardian – sexual acts can not be forced, corporal punishment is not allowed, etc.

Thanks for your enthusiasm on this topic and please keep up clarifying to misinformed people. I’m a Pirate from Germany and I had a kind of déjà-vu when reading your discussion with Ms. Malmström. I’ve seen dozens of discussions between Pirates, computer specialists etc. and Mrs. von der Leyen, our German Ms. Malmström who got to be known as ”Zensursula”. The lack of knowledge and arguments is always stunning as well as is the energy and emotions some persons put into their plea for censorship infrastructures.
I also read your blog entry about IFPI’s child porn strategy which was acutally very creepy when I realized that this seminar happend just a few months before the discussion started in Germnay…

The following legislation on gambling: In 1867, the Public Gaming. This law provides punishment for playing and maintaining a “total pandemonium. The law is also the government to pass laws on public gaming in their jurisdiction. Criminal law in the country has been amended in accordance with his political game. Gambling, lotteries and sweepstakes gaming contracts taken into account and, therefore, invalid and unenforceable. Then the courts will not accept any claims resulting from the contract game

An adventure game is a game video or text, where the player takes the role of protagonist in an interactive fiction, which is driven by exploration and puzzle-solving, rather than physical problems. Classic games include a variety of literary genres, including fantasy, science fiction, mystery, horror and comedy